With the release of Lion, users can now see some of the groundwork that Apple has laid down in OS X for ultra high resolution displays. We covered Apple's support of these new "HiDPI" modes while OS X Lion was still in beta.
For those who have downloaded Apple's Xcode for Lion, you can enable "HiDPI" mode in the Quartz Debug application found in the Developer directory. Once enabled, OS X's Displays control panel offers additional 1/4 (and lower) resolution sizes as shown here on a 30" Cinema Display with a native resolution of 2560x1600:
Unfortunately, there's not much to see yet. The 1280x800 HiDPI resolution shown here represents exactly 1/4 of the area of the native resolution of the 30" Cinema Display and simply offers you a zoomed in view on present day monitors.
The reasoning is that when displays do reach ultra high resolutions and dots per inch (DPI), simply drawing the OS X interface as-is would result in very small interface elements. Apple's solution is to scale all on-screen elements automatically by a factor of two (in each direction).
So, in the future, we might be using 2560x1600 (HiDPI) mode on a theoretical 30" 5120x3200 pixel display. All user interface elements would stay the same size as today's 30" Cinema Display, but when available, higher resolution textures would be used to render the graphics. This is the same way that it worked when Apple transitioned from the original iPhone resolution to the iPhone 4's retina display.
Arstechnica offers a good example screenshot showing this in effect. Fonts already render in the higher resolution while bitmapped graphics demonstrate a blocky effect as they have not yet been replaced with high resolution ("Retina") graphics.
The groundwork is there now, so when technology catches up, we could see double-DPI Retina displays in our future.
So, maybe you'd care to enlighten us ? Maybe I'm just nostalgic for the 80s and 90s, back when vector graphics were a possibility. Now that we have much more powerful CPUs and GPUs, it seems that vector graphics have become way too hard to handle... :rolleyes:
Only stuff that's required to scale. IE : the UI.
And games have been using vector graphics since the 80s and 90s, at least, games made with a little known technology called Flash. Or the above Sierra game, Conquest of Camelot ;) In fact, isn't that screenshot from a game that uses vector graphics ? (Plants vs Zombies ?).
Obviously, not all UI elements are needed to scale. The desktop wallpaper can remain a bitmap image, but things like icons, buttons, fonts and all UI controls would need to be scaled.
Think man, think.
Sure, I'll help enlighten. ;) Here are just a few points (some of which Arn has already pointed out):
* Photorealistic graphics. As stated multiple times, you can't use vector for this. * Pixel-perfect designs. When you see a gorgeous iPhone or iPad app, it's because of this. You can't just resize a vector icon and expect it to look great at any size. It simply doesn't work like that. * Processing power. Load a complicated piece of vector artwork in Illustrator. It takes time to process all the math in a vector illustration. * File size. Making the assumption that vector is always smaller is wildly incorrect. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. * Textures. Wood, cloth, stone, grunge. Those detailed, fantastic textures aren't vector -- they're raster. Can you use vector for them? Yes, the simple ones. But to get the same depth of detail (and you never will, because textures are often photorealistic), you get back to hurting processing power. * Effects rendering. Rasterizing an effect is much simpler than combining it with vector art. It's simple for the designer, prevents a developer from having to code the effect (which is no small task), and saves processing power. * Development time. Coding for vector in everything can increase development time due to the shortcomings of vector-based art. Often it's just faster to use rasterized artwork. Keep in mind this doesn't mean a designer doesn't use vector in his workflow, it just means that he saves it to raster at the end.
These are just a few things off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many more, but I don't have time to write a short story. ;)
That's funny, I could have sworn you originally said:
Man up and admit you were wrong for goodness sakes.
I was replying to a generalisation of the fact. Someone stated they are bigger. I said they are not, in response to their generalisation. I could of gone all boring and started stating static vector filesizes and variable bitmap sizes for scaled images of each format but I didn't.
What is your problem anyway? I asked a question 'why cant vectors be used?'. Someone, maybe you, responded and I then asked a further question regarding the response? Are we not allowed to ask questions on forums these days without people looking for a fight? Why do I have to 'man up' when I have already stated I dont fully understand the concept?
I'm asking questions because I don't understand something. I don't pretend to understand things either unlike some people around here.
Apple has announced it will be holding a special event on Tuesday, May 7 at 7 a.m. Pacific Time (10 a.m. Eastern Time), with a live stream to be available on Apple.com and on YouTube as usual. The event invitation has a tagline of "Let Loose" and shows an artistic render of an Apple Pencil, suggesting that iPads will be a focus of the event. Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more ...
Apple has dropped the number of Vision Pro units that it plans to ship in 2024, going from an expected 700 to 800k units to just 400k to 450k units, according to Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo. Orders have been scaled back before the Vision Pro has launched in markets outside of the United States, which Kuo says is a sign that demand in the U.S. has "fallen sharply beyond expectations." As a...
Wednesday April 24, 2024 3:39 pm PDT by Juli Clover
Apple today released several open source large language models (LLMs) that are designed to run on-device rather than through cloud servers. Called OpenELM (Open-source Efficient Language Models), the LLMs are available on the Hugging Face Hub, a community for sharing AI code. As outlined in a white paper [PDF], there are eight total OpenELM models, four of which were pre-trained using the...
Apple is finally planning a Calculator app for the iPad, over 14 years after launching the device, according to a source familiar with the matter. iPadOS 18 will include a built-in Calculator app for all iPad models that are compatible with the software update, which is expected to be unveiled during the opening keynote of Apple's annual developers conference WWDC on June 10. AppleInsider...
The upcoming iOS 17.5 update for the iPhone includes only a few new user-facing features, but hidden code changes reveal some additional possibilities. Below, we have recapped everything new in the iOS 17.5 and iPadOS 17.5 beta so far. Web Distribution Starting with the second beta of iOS 17.5, eligible developers are able to distribute their iOS apps to iPhone users located in the EU...
Top Rated Comments
because it's hard to make all graphics into vectors?
arn
You're not a software developer, are you?
Scaling is not the problem. Scaling and not looking like ****, that is the problem.
Sure, I'll help enlighten. ;) Here are just a few points (some of which Arn has already pointed out):
* Photorealistic graphics. As stated multiple times, you can't use vector for this.
* Pixel-perfect designs. When you see a gorgeous iPhone or iPad app, it's because of this. You can't just resize a vector icon and expect it to look great at any size. It simply doesn't work like that.
* Processing power. Load a complicated piece of vector artwork in Illustrator. It takes time to process all the math in a vector illustration.
* File size. Making the assumption that vector is always smaller is wildly incorrect. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
* Textures. Wood, cloth, stone, grunge. Those detailed, fantastic textures aren't vector -- they're raster. Can you use vector for them? Yes, the simple ones. But to get the same depth of detail (and you never will, because textures are often photorealistic), you get back to hurting processing power.
* Effects rendering. Rasterizing an effect is much simpler than combining it with vector art. It's simple for the designer, prevents a developer from having to code the effect (which is no small task), and saves processing power.
* Development time. Coding for vector in everything can increase development time due to the shortcomings of vector-based art. Often it's just faster to use rasterized artwork. Keep in mind this doesn't mean a designer doesn't use vector in his workflow, it just means that he saves it to raster at the end.
These are just a few things off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many more, but I don't have time to write a short story. ;)
No they are much smaller. They contain less information.
I was replying to a generalisation of the fact. Someone stated they are bigger. I said they are not, in response to their generalisation. I could of gone all boring and started stating static vector filesizes and variable bitmap sizes for scaled images of each format but I didn't.
What is your problem anyway? I asked a question 'why cant vectors be used?'. Someone, maybe you, responded and I then asked a further question regarding the response? Are we not allowed to ask questions on forums these days without people looking for a fight? Why do I have to 'man up' when I have already stated I dont fully understand the concept?
I'm asking questions because I don't understand something. I don't pretend to understand things either unlike some people around here.